Practices Concerning Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Survey of 460 Surgeons

Challenges of Revisional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Comprehensive Guide to Unraveling the Complexities and Solutions of Revisional Bariatric Procedures

Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery (RMBS) presents unique challenges in addressing weight loss failure or complications arising from initial bariatric procedures. This review aims to explore the complexities and solutions associated with revisional bariatric procedures comprehensively, offering insights into the evolving terrain of metabolic and bariatric surgery. A literature review is conducted to identify pertinent studies and expert opinions regarding RMBS. Methodological approaches, patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, preoperative assessments, and postoperative management strategies are synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of current practices and advancements in the field, including institutional protocols. This review synthesizes key findings regarding the challenges encountered in RMBS, including the underlying causes of primary procedure failure, anatomical complexities, technical considerations, and assessments of surgical outcomes. Additionally, patient outcomes, complication rates, and long-term success are presented, along with institutional approaches to patient assessment and procedure selection. This review provides valuable insights for clinicians grappling with the complexities of RMBS. A comprehensive understanding of patient selection, surgical techniques, preoperative management, and postoperative care is crucial for enhancing outcomes and ensuring patient satisfaction in the field of metabolic bariatric surgery.

Medium and Long-Term Weight Loss After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the current increase in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), data on the sustainability of weight loss remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess weight loss outcomes in adult patients undergoing RBS with follow-up > 2 years. Twenty-eight observational studies (n = 2213 patients) were included. The %TWL was 27.2 (95%CI = 23.7 to 30.6), and there was a drop in BMI of 10.2 kg/m2 (95%CI =  - 11.6 to - 8.7). The %EWL was 54.8 (95%CI = 47.2 to 62.4) but with a high risk of publication bias (Egger's test = 0.003). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Our data reinforce that current evidence on RBS is mainly based on low-quality observational studies, and further higher-quality studies are needed to support evidence-based practice.

30-day morbidity and mortality of revisional bariatric surgery - An international multi-centre collaborative (BROAD) study

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is increasing worldwide. There is currently no large multinational, prospective data on 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS at participating centres.

METHODS

An international steering group was formed to oversee the study. The steering group members invited bariatric surgeons worldwide to participate in this study. Ethical approval was obtained at the lead centre. Data were collected prospectively on all consecutive RBS patients operated between 15th May 2021 to 31st December 2021. Revisions for complications were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 65 global centres submitted data on 750 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy (n = 369, 49.2 %) was the most common primary surgery for which revision was performed. Revisional procedures performed included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 41.1 % (n = 308) patients, One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in 19.3 % (n = 145), Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) in 16.7 % (n = 125) and other procedures in 22.9 % (n = 172) patients. Indications for revision included weight regain in 615(81.8 %) patients, inadequate weight loss in 127(16.9 %), inadequate diabetes control in 47(6.3 %) and diabetes relapse in 27(3.6 %). 30-day complications were seen in 80(10.7 %) patients. Forty-nine (6.5 %) complications were Clavien Dindo grade 3 or higher. Two patients (0.3 %) died within 30 days of RBS.

CONCLUSION

RBS for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is associated with 10.7 % morbidity and 0.3 % mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common primary procedure to undergo revisional bariatric surgery, while Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most commonly performed revision.

The risk and benefit of revisional vs. primary metabolic- bariatric surgery and drug therapy - A narrative review

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) leads to long-term weight loss, reduced risk of cardiovascular events and cancer, and reduced mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are currently the most common surgical techniques. Weight loss after MBS was previously believed to work through restriction and malabsorption, however, mechanistic studies show that MBS techniques with long term efficacy instead alter physiological signaling between the gut and the brain. In revisional MBS, the initial surgical technique is corrected, modified, or converted to a new one. The indication for revisional MBS can be to achieve further weight loss or improvement in obesity comorbidity, but it may be necessary due to complications (e.g., gastroesophageal reflux or obstruction). Revisional MBS is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications and often less weight loss compared to the results following primary surgery. This narrative review summarizes data from revisional MBS where information is often presented with inconsistent definitions for indications and outcomes, making comparison between strategies difficult. In summary, we suggest careful weighing of potential benefits and risks with revisional MBS, bearing in mind the option of add-on therapy with new anti-obesity drugs.

Revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term weight loss outcomes and complications of revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). A total of 586 patients underwent LSG from January 2010 to February 2018. Revisional OAGB (rOAGB) was performed in 22 (3.8%) patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 20 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after the revisional OAGB was carried out. The indications for revisional surgery were as follows: insufficient weight loss-4 (20%), weight regain-13 (65%), weight regain and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-2 (10%), and dysphagia with gastroesophageal reflux-1 (5%). The mean interval between the LSG and rOAGB was 35.3 ± 15.4 months (range 4-64). The mean follow-up time after rOAGB was 45.5 ± 17.1 months (range 12-54). At the end of the follow-up after rOAGB, %TWL was 26.4 ± 8.9%, and %EWL was 58.5 ± 21.6%, based on pre-LSG body weight. In all three patients with intractable GERD, the clinical symptoms of reflux retreated after revisional OAGB. The overall complication rate was 20%. In conclusion, the main indications for revision after LSG are weight regain, insufficient weight loss, and intractable GERD. Revisional OAGB emerges as a viable surgical alternative for unsuccessful LSG, presenting notable weight loss outcomes; however, it may be linked to an increased incidence of complications.

Patients' perspectives on weight recurrence after bariatric surgery: a single-center survey

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence (WR) affects nearly 20% of patients after bariatric surgery and may decrease its benefits, affecting patients' quality of life negatively. Patient perspectives on WR are not well known.

OBJECTIVES

Assess patient needs, goals, and preferences regarding WR treatment.

SETTING

Single MBSAQIP-accredited academic center, and online recruitment.

METHODS

An 18-item, web-based survey was distributed to adults seeking treatment for WR after a primary bariatric surgery (PBS), in addition to online recruitment, between 2021 and 2023. Survey items included somatometric data, questions about the importance of factors for successful weight loss, procedure decision-making, and treatment expectations.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with > 10% increase from their nadir weight were included in the study. Patients had initially undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (62.5%), sleeve gastrectomy (28.6%), adjustable gastric banding (3.6%), or other procedures (5.3%). When assessing their satisfaction with PBS, 57.1% were somewhat/extremely satisfied, 33.9% somewhat/extremely dissatisfied, while 8.9% were ambivalent. Patients considered the expected benefits (for example, weight loss) as the most important factor when choosing a treatment option for WR. Patient goals included "feeling good about myself" (96.4% very/extremely important), "being able to resume activities I could not do before" (91% very/extremely important), and "improved quality of life" and "-life expectancy" (> 90% very/extremely important). Finally, RBS, lifestyle modification with peer support, and anti-obesity medication were ranked as first treatment options for WR by 40%, 38.8%, and 29.8% of the respondents, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considered weight loss as the most important factor when choosing treatment modality for WR, with RBS and lifestyle changes being preferred over weight-loss medications. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to counsel this patient population better.

Nissen Sleeve as a Redo Surgery Post Gastric Banding for Non-responders to Weight Loss and Therapy-Resistant Reflux

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) would be the procedure of choice for non-responders of weight loss and patients with reflux symptoms (GERD). However, not every patient is a candidate for RYGB, and sometimes, the patient can insist only on alternatives other than malabsorption procedures, as was the case with our patient. We report a case with symptomatic GERD who underwent a successful Nissen sleeve gastrectomy after band removal. To our knowledge, this is the first case using Nissen sleeve as a redo surgery after a previous bariatric procedure.

Efficacy of endoscopic resuturing versus pharmacotherapy to treat weight recidivism after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A subset of patients experience weight recidivism after primary endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (P-ESG). Available options for management of weight regain include initiation of antiobesity medications (AOMs) or redo ESG (R-ESG). The comparative effectiveness of these options is not clear.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing ESG. From 2013 to 2021, 79 patients who were started on AOM or underwent R-ESG for management of weight recidivism after P-ESG were included. The primary outcome of this study was final total body weight loss (TBWL) at the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were started on AOM and 24 patients underwent R-ESG. Age, gender distribution, and baseline body mass index did not differ significantly between groups. The proportion of noncompliant patients (defined as patients who missed their first post-ESG follow-up visit) was significantly higher in the AOM group compared with the R-ESG group (67% vs 35%, P = .012). The additional TBWL after R-ESG was significantly (both clinically and statistically) better than after initiation of AOM (9.5% ± 7.2% vs 2.1% ± 8.6%, respectively; P = .001). Final TBWL clearly favored R-ESG over AOM for treatment of weight recidivism (19.9% ± 10.4% vs 13.6% ± 9.2%, P = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

R-ESG is an effective treatment to induce weight loss after experiencing weight recidivism. These results highlight an important advantage of ESG as a repeatable minimally invasive procedure.

Re-sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and sensible intervention in selected patients: retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy is a good treatment intervention to control the metabolic syndrome in patients with obesity worldwide. However, weight regain is of great concern and would usually necessitate a reintervention. In recent years, re-sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) has been proposed to treat weight regain in the context of a large residual stomach. Our objective was to analyze the long-term results and safety profile of this intervention in a large case series.

METHODS

From September 2010 to March 2021, a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary nonuniversity hospital was performed. Seventy-nine patients received a ReSG by laparoscopy. Preoperative radiologic imaging showed a dilation of the gastric pouch exceeding 250 cc in all cases.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients (87% females) with a mean age of 44.8 years old and a mean BMI of 40.0 kg/m 2 were enrolled in the study. The mean follow-up was 44.8 months. The ReSG indication was insufficient weight loss in 37 patients (46.8%) and weight regain in 39 patients (53.2%). The authors noticed a 10.1% complications rate: gastric stenosis (5.1%), bleeding (2.5%), and incisional site hernia in 2.5%, with no death. There was no gastric fistula detected. The mean BMI decreased to 33.1 kg/m 2 after ReSG (a decrease of 6.9 kg/m 2 ).

CONCLUSION

After insufficient weight loss or weight regain following sleeve gastrectomy and in the presence of localized or global gastric tube dilation, ReSG seems to be a good treatment choice and a safe procedure.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high technical and weight loss failure rates. We evaluate here the 1-year morbidity, mortality, and weight loss of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) as a feasible conversion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent LRYGB from July 2004 to December 2019 were selected from an electronic database at our center. Patients had a conversion to LRYGB at the same time (one-stage approach) or with a minimum of 3 months in between (two-stage approach). Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1295 patients underwent a conversion from LAGB to LRYGB at our center: 1167 patients (90.1%) in one stage and 128 patients (9.9%) in two stages. There was no mortality. An early (30-day) postoperative complication occurred in 93 patients (7.2%), with no significant difference found between groups. Hemorrhage was the most common complication in 39 patients (3.0%), and the reoperation was required in 19 patients (1.4%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, the mean %EWL 72.8%, and the mean %EBMIL 87.0%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to LRYGB can be considered as a safe and effective option with low complication rate and good weight loss outcomes at 1 year. One-stage conversion provides the same early outcome as two-step surgery with a competent surgeon.

Non-response After Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy-the Theoretical Need for Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Results from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is a second-line treatment option after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GBP) in patients with primary or secondary non-response. The aim was to analyze the theoretical need for revisional surgery after SG and GBP when applying four indication benchmarks.

METHOD

Based on data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, SG and GBP were compared regarding four endpoints: 1. excess weight loss (%EWL) < 50%, 2. weight regain of more than 10 kg after nadir, 3. fulfillment of previous IFSO-guidelines, or 4. ADA criteria for bariatric metabolic surgery 2 years after primary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 60,426 individuals were included in the study (SG: n = 7856 and GBP: n = 52,570). Compared to patients in the GBP group, more SG patients failed to achieve a %EWL > 50% (23.0% versus 8.5%, p < .001), regained more than 10 kg after nadir (4.3% versus 2.5%, p < .001), and more often fulfilled the IFSO criteria (8.0% versus 4.5%, p < .001) or the ADA criteria (3.3% versus 1.8%, p < 001) at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SG is associated with a higher risk for weight non-response compared to GBP. To offer revisional bariatric surgery to all non-responders exceeds the bounds of feasibility and operability. Hence, individual prioritization and intensified evaluation of alternative second-line treatments are necessary.

How to address weight regain after bariatric surgery in an individualized way

Bariatric surgery is the most effective obesity treatment. As a chronic and progressive disease, weight loss response to surgery will vary individually. Thus, insufficient weight loss or regain can happen after surgery, but they lack a standard definition. There are different mechanisms underlying weight regain and/or insufficient weight loss, such as genetics, maladaptive eating behaviors, and the inadequate choice of index operations, among others. Patients with weight regain or insufficient weight loss should be submitted to an individualized and comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team. This may help identify the causes and direct the appropriate treatment individually. Options for patients with insufficient weight loss and/or weight regain following bariatric surgery include repair of postoperative complications, conversion into another operation, endoscopic therapies with inconsistent outcomes, and dietary/behavioral counseling. Revision and conversion surgeries have higher complication rates than primary operations. Although there is no standard pharmacological regimen for that indication, the new agents seem efficient and safe to promote the loss of the regained weight and even be adjunctive to selected patients before they reach the plateau. This review aims to summarize the knowledge of the best approach for patients with weight regain/insufficient weight loss and suggests an algorithm to customize the approach and therapeutic options after bariatric surgery.

Bariatric Surgeon Perspective on Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) for Weight Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence (WR) after bariatric surgery occurs in nearly 20% of patients. Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) may benefit this population but remains controversial among surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

Explore surgeon perspectives and practices for patients with WR after primary bariatric surgery (PBS).

SETTING

Web-based survey of bariatric surgeons.

METHODS

A 21-item survey was piloted and posted on social media closed groups (Facebook) utilized by bariatric surgeons. Survey items included demographic information, questions pertaining to the definition of suboptimal and satisfactory response to bariatric surgery, and general questions related to different WR management options.

RESULTS

One hundred ten surgeons from 19 countries responded to the survey. Ninety-eight percent responded that WR was multifactorial, including behavioral and biological factors. Failure of PBS was defined as excess weight loss < 50% by 31.4%, as excess weight loss <25% by 12.8%, and as comorbidity recurrence by 17.4%. Surgeon responses differed significantly by gender (P = .036). 29.4% believed RBS was not successful, while 14.1% were unsure. Nevertheless, 73% reported that they would perform RBS if sufficient evidence of benefit existed. Most frequently performed revisional procedures included conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band to RYGB, and RYGB revision (21.9% versus 18.2% versus 15.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrates significant variability in surgeon perception regarding causes and the effectiveness of RBS. Moreover, they disagree on what constitutes a nonsatisfactory response to PBS and to whom they offer RBS. These findings may relate to limited available clinical evidence on best management options for this patient population. Clinical trials investigating the comparative effectiveness of various treatment options are needed.

Weight-Related Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Non-response After Sleeve Gastrectomy-a Systematic Review

Weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy is an emerging issue. This systematic review compared revisional procedures for weight-related outcomes. We searched several databases for relevant articles and included adult patients with revisional bariatric procedures after primary sleeve gastrectomy. Twelve trials with 1046 patients were included, covering five revisional procedures. There were no randomised controlled trials, and 10 studies had a critical risk of bias. Significant variations in inclusion criteria, therapy benchmarks, follow-up schemes, and outcome measurements were observed, preventing meaningful comparison of results. Evidence-based treatment strategies for weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy cannot be deduced from the current literature. Prospective studies with well-defined indications, standardised techniques, and strict adherence to outcome measurements are needed.

Comparison of early post-operative complications in primary and revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and duodenal switch MBSAQIP-reported cases from 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most performed bariatric surgery, though gastric bypass (GB) and duodenal switch (DS) remain common, especially as conversion/revision (C/R) procedures. This analysis compared early postoperative outcomes of primary and C/R laparoscopic SG to DS and GB; and primary procedures of each vs C/R counterparts.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) dataset was queried for SG, GB, and DS cases from 2015 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression calculated crude and adjusted odds ratios for surgical site infection (SSI), reoperation, and readmission at 30 days in two initial comparisons: (1) primary SG vs DS or GB and (2) C/R SG vs DS or GB. A secondary analysis compared primary GS, GB, or DS with C/R counterparts. Models were adjusted for confounding demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 755,968 primary cases, most were SG (72.8%), followed by GB (26.3%), then DS (0.9%). Compared to SG, GB and DS demonstrated higher odds of SSI (aOR 3.02 [2.84, 3.2]), readmission (aOR 1.97 [1.92, 2.03]), and reoperation (aOR 2.74 [2.62, 2.86]), respectively. Of 68,716 C/R cases, SG was most common (43.2%), followed by GB (37.5%), then DS (19.2%). C/R GB and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (aOR 2.28 [1.98, 2.62]), readmission (aOR 2.10 [1.94, 2.27]), and reoperation (aOR 2.3 [2.04, 2.59]) vs SG, respectively. C/R SG and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 2.09 [1.66, 2.63]; 1.63 [1.24, 2.14), readmission (OR 1.13 [1.02, 1.26]), and reoperation (OR 1.27 [1.06, 1.52]; 1.58 [1.24, 2.0]), vs primary procedures. C/R DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 1.23 [1.66, 2.63]).

CONCLUSIONS

Early complications are comparable between GB and DS, and greater than SG. In C/R procedures, GB and DS demonstrate greater risk than SG. Overall, C/R procedures demonstrate greater risk of most, but not all, early postoperative complications.

Analysis of the Factors Contributing to Bariatric Success After Laparoscopic Redo Bariatric Procedures: Results from Multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

INTRODUCTION

With continuously growing number of redo bariatric surgeries (RBS), it is necessary to look for factors determining success of redo-surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent RBS in 12 referral bariatric centers in Poland from 2010 to 2020. The study included 529 patients. The efficacy endpoints were percentage of excessive weight loss (%EWL) and remission of hypertension (HT) and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESULTS

Group 1: weight regain Two hundred thirty-eight of 352 patients (67.6%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in body mass index (BMI) pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure < 10.6 kg/m2 (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.43-3.80, p = 0.001) was independent factor contributing to bariatric success after RBS, i.e., > 50% EWL. Group 2: insufficient weight loss One hundred thirty of 177 patients (73.4%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in BMI pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.001) was independent factors lowering odds for bariatric success. Group 3: insufficient control of obesity-related diseases Forty-three of 87 patients (49.4%) achieved remission of hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) as RBS was independent factor contributing to bariatric success (OR 7.23, 95% CI: 1.67-31.33, p = 0.008), i.e., complete remission of HT and/or T2D.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is an effective method of treatment for obesity-related morbidity. Greater weight regain before RBS was minimizing odds for bariatric success in patients operated due to weight regain or insufficient weight loss. OAGB was associated with greater chance of complete remission of hypertension and/or diabetes.

The rising tide of revisional surgery: tracking changes in index cases among bariatric-accredited fellowships

Background

The field of bariatric surgery has seen peaks and troughs in the types of metabolic procedures performed. Our primary aim was to evaluate bariatric case volumes among fellows enrolled in bariatric Fellowship Council (FC)-accredited programs. Our secondary aim was to assess trends in revisional case volumes.

Methods

We reviewed de-identified FC case logs for all bariatric surgery-accredited programs from 2010 through 2019. The number of primary sleeve gastrectomy, gastric band, gastric bypass, biliopancreatic diversion, and major revisional bariatric surgical procedures (defined as a revision with creation of a new anastomosis) were graphed for each academic year. Fellows were stratified into quartiles based on the number of revisional operations per year and graphed over ten years. Volumes of primary gastric bypass, major revisions, and total anastomotic cases were compared over time using ANOVA with p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

Case volumes for 822 fellows were evaluated. Sleeve gastrectomy had a significant surge in 2010 and plateaued in 2016. The fellows’ number of primary gastric bypasses had a non-significant decrease from 84 to 75 cases/fellow from 2010 to 2019. This decrease was offset by a significant increase in major revisional surgery from 8 to 19 cases/fellow. As a result, the number of anastomotic cases did not change significantly over the study time period. Interestingly, as revisional volume has grown, the gap between quartiles of fellowship programs has widened with the 95th percentile growing at a much faster rate than lower quartiles.

Conclusion

The volume of bariatric procedures performed in the last decade among FC fellows follows similar trends to national data. Major revisional cases have doubled with the most robust growth isolated to a small number of programs. As revisional surgery continues to increase, applicants interested in a comprehensive bariatric practice should seek out training programs that offer strong revisional experience.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Revision of Restrictive Procedures: Mid-Term Outcomes and Analysis of Possible Outcome Predictors

PURPOSE

Revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) for insufficient weight reduction following primary restrictive procedures is still investigated. We report mid-term outcomes and possible outcome predictors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative study of revisional OAGB outcomes (2015-2018) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG); silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (SRVG) is separately discussed.

RESULTS

In all, 203 patients underwent revisional OAGB following LAGB (n = 125), SG (n = 64), and SRVG (n = 14). Comparing LAGB and SG, body mass index (BMI) at revision were 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42 ± 11.2 kg/m² (p = 0.64), reduced to 31.3 ± 8.3 and 31.9 ± 8.3 (p = 0.64) at mid-term follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) > 50% was achieved in ~ 50%, with EWL of 79.4 ± 20.4% (corresponding total weight loss 38.5 ± 10.4%). SRVG patients had comparable outcomes. Resolution rates of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension (HTN) were 93.3% and 84.6% in LAGB compared with 100% and 100% in SG patients (p = 0.47 and p = 0.46), respectively. In univariable analysis, EWL > 50% was associated with male gender (p < 0.001), higher weight (p < 0.001), and BMI (p = 0.007) at primary surgery, and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for EWL > 50% were male gender (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.27-6.18; p = 0.01) and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Revisional OAGB for insufficient restrictive procedures results in excellent weight reduction in nearly 50% of patients, with resolution of T2D and HTN at mid-term follow-up. Male gender and higher BMI at revision were associated with EWL > 50% following revisional OAGB. Identification of more predictors could aid judicious patient selection.

Pharmacologic management of weight regain following bariatric surgery

While bariatric surgery restults in significant long-term weight loss for most patients with obesity, post-surgical weight gain affects a considerable percentage of patients to varying degrees of severity. Furthermore, a small but significant percentage of patients experience inadequate post-surgical weight loss. Although many studies have examined the role of anti-obesity medications to address post-operative weight regain, an evidence-based consensus has not yet been achieved because of the heterogeneity of populations studied and the studies themselves. Observational studies in the post-bariatric surgery population consistently demonstrate the benefit of medical weight management after bariatric surgery, with most evidence highlighting liraglutide, topiramate, and phentermine/topiramate. New anti-obesity medications are anticipated to be helpful for post-surgical weight optimization given their efficacy in the non-surgical population.

Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with a 150-cm Biliopancreatic Limb After Failure of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Mid-Term Outcomes and Comparison Between One- and Two-Stage Approaches

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was a common procedure worldwide but associated with a high rate of long-term failure. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after failed LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database in a tertiary referral center for bariatric surgery. All cases of revisional OAGB with a biliopancreatic limb (BPL) of 150 cm after failed LAGB performed between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 215 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB. Indication for surgery was primary weight loss (WL) failure in 30.7% of cases and long-term complications in the remaining patients, with or without associated weight regain. At the time of OAGB, the mean age was 43.2 ± 10.5 years and the mean BMI was 42 ± 6.9. Overall postoperative morbidity was 13.5%. The postoperative abscess ± leak rate was 5.9% in the overall population. Two years after OAGB, 9.7% of patients were lost to follow-up, % excess weight loss (EWL) was 88.2 ± 23.9, and % total weight loss (TWL) was 38.7 ± 9.3. At 5 years, 16.6% of patients were lost to follow-up, %EWL was 82.4 ± 25, and %TWL was 36.1 ± 10. There was no statistical difference in complication rates or WL results between the one-stage and two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSION

OAGB with a 150-cm BPL represents a safe and effective option after failed LAGB. Both synchronous OAGB and two-step revisional OAGB guarantee satisfying results in terms of postoperative morbidity and WL outcomes.

Revisional Single Anastomosis Sleeve Ileal (SASI) Bypass for Failed Gastric Clipping and Proximal Jejunal Bypass (GC-PJB) (Video Report)

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery, the most effective strategy to manage morbid obesity, has increased rapidly in the face of expanding obese population in the twenty-first century. Hence, it is reasonable to expect a rise in the need for revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), especially due to weight recidivism.

METHOD

In this video report, the patient was a 28-year-old Asian female with an initial BMI of 42.6 kg/m2 and underwent primary bariatric surgery of laparoscopic gastric clipping with proximal jejunal bypass (GC-PJB) in January 2018. She had the nadir BMI of 35.2 kg/m2 in August 2019. However, she regained weight and her BMI rebounded to 43.7 kg/m2 at the time of consultation for RBS in 2021. After a multidisciplinary team evaluation, laparoscopic procedures of removal of gastric clip and single anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass with preservation of previous jejunojejunal anastomosis were performed.

RESULTS

The operative time was 216 min and blood loss was 25 ml. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged 4 days after surgery. At the 3-month follow-up after RBS, the patient had lost 25 kg (weight dropped from 119 to 94 kg), and the corresponding BMI was 34.5 kg/m2.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic removal of gastric clip and SASI bypass with preservation of previous jejunojejunal anastomosis is technically feasible and promising as a revisional procedure for failed GC-PJB.

Global Variations in Practices Concerning Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-an Online Survey of 651 Bariatric and Metabolic Surgeons with Cumulative Experience of 158,335 Procedures

INTRODUCTION

There is significant variation in practices concerning Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) among bariatric surgeons, but there is currently a lack of robust data on the nature and extent of these variations. The purpose of this study was to understand global variations in practices concerning RYGB.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey on Survey Monkey® was created, and the link was shared freely on various social media platforms. The link was also distributed through a personnel email network of authors.

RESULTS

A total of 657 surgeons from 65 countries completed the survey. Crohn's disease and liver cirrhosis were considered absolute contraindications for RYGB by 427 surgeons (64.98%) and 347 surgeons (53.30%), respectively. More than 68.5% of surgeons performed routine upper GI endoscopy while 64.17% performed routine ultrasound of abdomen preoperatively. The majority of surgeons (77.70%) used the perigastric technique for Gastric pouch creation. Approximately, 79.5% used orogastric bougie. More than 70% of the respondents did not use any staple line reinforcement routinely. Only 17.67% of surgeons measured the whole small bowel length, and the majority of surgeons (86.5%) used constant length of BP limb. Approximately, 89% used constant length of alimentary limb. Approximately, 95% of surgeons preferred antecolic bypass, and more than 86% routinely closed the Petersen defect. Marginal ulcer prophylaxis was used by the majority (91.17%). Almost 95% of surgeons recommended lifelong vitamin and mineral supplements.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies global variations in practices concerning RYGB. It identifies several areas for future research and consensus building.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study

PURPOSE

The optimal revisional bariatric surgery procedure following a previous failed gastric band surgery is yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to compare single- and two-stage laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LSG after a failed LAGB in Israel during 2014-2017 were included. Data were obtained from the Israeli National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Data analyzed included comorbidities, postoperative complications, and anthropometric outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 595 patients included in the data analysis, 381 (64%) underwent one-stage and 214 (36%) had two-stage LSG. No differences were observed between the groups in complication rates (5.0 vs. 5.1%, p=0.93). Percent of total weight loss was lower following one-stage than two-stage procedure at both 6 months (19.3±9.3 vs. 21.5±8.1%; p=0.02) and 1 year postoperative (24.9±10.4 vs. 27.8±9.9%; p=0.02). No difference was observed in the percent excess weight loss (51 vs. 56%; p=0.34 and 66 vs. 72%; p=0.38, at 6 months and 12 months postoperative, respectively). In a regression analysis, percent excess weight loss was greater in the two-stage procedure (p=0.02), with no difference in the complication rates (p=0.98).

CONCLUSION

Single-step LSG had a similar safety profile as two-stage LSG following a failed LAGB. Better weight loss was seen following two-stage LSG. Further prospective studies should investigate long-term follow-up after one- and two-stage procedure.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared.

RESULTS

Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Bariatric revisional surgery: What are the challenges for the patient and the practitioner?

Bariatric revisional surgery represents an important new issue for obese patients because of the considerable rate of failure and complications following bariatric surgery. As the frequency of bariatric procedures increases, so too does the incidence of revisional surgery, which has become becoming increasingly important. The surgeon must know the indications and the results of the various revisional procedures in order to best guide the therapeutic decision. The current challenge is to correctly select the patients for revisional surgery and to choose the appropriate procedure in each case. Multidisciplinary management is essential to patient re-assessment and to prepare the patient for a re- intervention. The objective of this update, based on data from all the most recent studies concerning revisional surgery, is to guide the surgeon in the choice of the revisional procedure, depending on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, the previously performed procedure, the type of failure or complication observed, but also on the surgeon's own habits and the center's expertise. The collected results show that revisional surgery is difficult, with higher complication rates and weight-loss results that are often lower than those of first-intent surgery. For these reasons, patient selection must be rigorous and multidisciplinary and the management in expert centers of these difficult situations must be encouraged.

Medium term post-bariatric surgery deficit of vitamin B12 is predicted by deficit at time of surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients with morbid obesity have a high risk of deficits in micronutrients, after bariatric surgery. The reasons why systematic use of multivitamin and trace element supplements cannot prevent all deficits are complex and should deserve more attention. Little is known about the influence of micronutrient deficits at surgery.

AIM

This present study aimed to explore the deficit in vitamin B12 vs other micronutrients during the follow-up of a French cohort of cases with bariatric surgery under systematic multivitamin/trace elements supplementation and to determine whether it was influenced by clinical, metabolic characteristics at surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled obese patients with bariatric surgery (laparoscopic gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy) between 2013 and 2018 (OBESEPI/ALDEPI Cohort, NCT02663388). They received a daily multivitamin/micronutrients supplement. Follow-up data at 4 visits, 2, 12, 18 and 24 months after surgery, were collected.

RESULTS

The highest rate of deficits was observed at visit 1 for vitamin D (35.7%), iron (21.9%) and folate (10.2%). Except B12, the deficits of all micronutrients decreased in later visits. In contrast, cases with vitamin B12 deficit decreased from 13.5% at surgery to 2.0% at visit 1, and increased in later visits, with a maximum of 12.0% at visit 3. Vitamin B12 concentration at surgery was the single predictor of B12 deficit at visit 3. It was also associated with age, and APRI score, an index of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The failure of systematic supplementation with multivitamin/trace elements tablets to prevent specific deficits illustrates the need for adapted specific supplementations, in some cases. The worsening of B12 deficit rate in the 18-24 months follow-up depends in part to low B12 at time of surgery. A special consideration should be devoted to this subset of patients. The cohort study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02663388.

Pros and Cons of Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are regarded as technically more demanding and riskier than primary interventions. While the use of the surgical robot has not yet proven to be advantageous in primary bariatric interventions, the question remains whether its use is justified for more complex revisional procedures.

Objective

To show that revisional bariatric surgery can be performed safely using the da Vinci® Xi surgical system.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for revisional bariatric procedures between January 2016 and November 2019.

Results

Of 78 revision operations, four (5.1%) were performed by open surgery, 30 (38.5%) by laparoscopic surgery, and 44 (56.4%) by robotic surgery. A comparative analysis of robotic (n = 41) versus laparoscopic (n = 18) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (rRYGB) revealed significant differences favoring the robotic approach for operative time (130.7 vs. 167.6 min), C-reactive protein values at days 1 (27.9 vs. 49.1 mg/L) and 2 (48.2 vs. 83.6 mg/L) after surgery, and length of stay (4.9 vs. 6.2 days). Lower complication rates (Clavien-Dindo II-V) were found after rRRYGB (7.3 vs. 22.2%, not significant).

Conclusions

Revisional bariatric surgery using a robotic system is safe. The operative time performing rRRYGB is significantly shorter than rLRYGB in our experience. Otherwise, results were largely comparable. Due to different indications, different index operations and a wide range of revisional procedures, further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS.

METHODS

We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus.

RESULTS

Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%).

CONCLUSION

Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice.

Mechanical factors in the prediction of integrity of the gastrojejunal anastomosis in ex-vivo RYGB models

BACKGROUND

Surgical staplers represent one of the important instruments in modern surgery. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures. Various techniques have been described for performing gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomosis, including linear stapled anastomosis (LSA), circular stapled anastomosis (CSA) and hand-sewn anastomosis (HSA).

OBJECTIVES

An ex-vivo porcine-based experiment was designed to compare the mechanical integrity of the GJ anastomosis among the 3 different techniques by measuring burst pressure (BP).

SETTING

Laboratory-based study conducted at the clinical skills laboratory at Birmingham Heartlands Hospitals, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

METHODS

Porcine stomachs and small bowels were used to create a GJ model. Four GJ anastomosis models each were created using circular stapler (CSA group) and hand-sewn techniques (HSA group). Stomach and small bowel thickness were recorded. BP was measured by sequential injections of methylene-blue diluted saline until a leak was detected. Total volume until leak is recorded. Compliance (C) was calculated using the formula C = ΔP/ΔV.

RESULTS

Results from our previous experiment for the LSA group are included. One model was excluded from the CSA and the HSA groups due to technical errors. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Total volume in LSA, CSA, and HSA groups was 60 ± 4.08 mL, 73.67 ± 3.22 mL, and 51.67 ± 20.21 mL, respectively. BP in LSA, CSA, and HSA groups was 18 ± 4.69 mm Hg, 20.33 ± 5.77 mm Hg, and 9.67 ± 3.79 mm Hg, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in BP among the 3 groups (P = .033; Kruskal-Wallis test). C in LSA, CSA, and HSA were 3.50 ± .88 mm Hg/mL, 3.78 ± .85 mm Hg/mL, and 5.39 ± 1.34 mm Hg/mL, respectively (P = .064).

CONCLUSION

BP was higher in CSA and LSA groups compared with the HSA group, suggesting a mechanically stronger anastomosis. Despite the lack of statistical significance, higher BP recorded in the CSA group than in the LSA group suggests better anastomotic integrity.

Surgical management of obesity

Weight loss surgery is the most effective intervention for addressing obesity and related metabolic disorders such as diabetes. We describe common surgical procedures as well as emerging and investigational procedures in terms of their capacity to induce weight reduction and their risk profiles. We then discuss the impact of weight loss surgery on important obesity related disorders including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The question of operative choice is discussed with respect to benefits and risks of common procedures. Reoperative weight loss surgery, an increasingly common element of weight loss surgical practice, is reviewed. We briefly discuss the metabolic mechanism of action of weight loss surgery. Lack of access to and under-utilization of weight loss surgery represent important challenges to adequate obesity treatment, and we review these topics as well.